Y'know, I've never gotten why the debate among atheists gets intense over whether biblical/quranic figures actually existed. I'm not knocking it or anything. The debates are interesting. But why does this matter one iota to a nonbeliever?
As atheists, we know this much: A Nazarene carpenter did not actually raise the dead, walk on water, ascend into heaven, etc. Then the question becomes: but was there an actual guy who was just a preaching carpenter upon whom the stories are based? Who cares? Let the theists struggle with it; it's their problem.
Professor X was inspired by/based on Yul Brynner. Does Yul Brynner's actual existence make the professor any more or less fictitious? No. Neither would an actual preaching carpenter. Even the theists don't care about the question of a mundane, historical Jesus. If they were to go back in time and see that he was just some schmuck with no superpowers, I'm sure they'd be just as upset as finding out he never existed.
As atheists, we know this much: A Nazarene carpenter did not actually raise the dead, walk on water, ascend into heaven, etc. Then the question becomes: but was there an actual guy who was just a preaching carpenter upon whom the stories are based? Who cares? Let the theists struggle with it; it's their problem.
Professor X was inspired by/based on Yul Brynner. Does Yul Brynner's actual existence make the professor any more or less fictitious? No. Neither would an actual preaching carpenter. Even the theists don't care about the question of a mundane, historical Jesus. If they were to go back in time and see that he was just some schmuck with no superpowers, I'm sure they'd be just as upset as finding out he never existed.
